Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.24 seconds)Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar & Anr on 24 April, 1996
8. The judgment cited by Mr. Anshin H. Desai,
Ld. Senior counsel, that there is no error
apparent on the face of records and that the
Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Tamilnadu
Electricity Board and another Vs. N. Raju
Reddiar and another reported in 1997 (9) SCC
736 that practice of filling review petition
by changing the advocate who had appeared in
main proceedings before the Hon'ble court.
Such practice held is an abuse of process of
law.
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
State Of Gujarat Thro' The Secretary & 2 vs Indravadan Jayshankar Pandya on 6 December, 2014
In the case of
State of Gujarat Vs. Madhubindu Jayshankar
Vyas and another reported in 2006(4) GLR 3673
in paragraph 25 it has been held that Power
of Review can be used only to rectify mistake
apparent on the face of records and not to
substitute the view. A mistake if has to be
fished out and searched out cannot be said to
be a mistake apparent on face of record. It
Page 21 of 24
HC-NIC Page 21 of 24 Created On Sat Apr 29 00:37:24 IST 2017
C/MCA/2685/2016 CAV ORDER
is also held that review cannot be considered
as an appeal in disguise. In the case of
Inderchand Jain(dead) through legal heirs Vs.
Motilal (dead) through legal heirs reported
in 2009(14) SCC 663 it has been held that
Review is not an appeal in disguise. Review
court cannot sit in appeal over its own order
and rehearing of the matter is impermissible
in law. Review is exception to general rule
that once a judgment is signed and
pronounced, it should not be altered. Courts
should not invoke their inherent jurisdiction
for reviewing any order.
Ketaki Sahu & Ors vs Laxmi Devi & Ors on 19 April, 2004
And others versus Laxmi
Devi and others reported in 2002(10) SCC 501
and has argued that such type of litigation
is utterly vexatious and abuse of process of
Court. Mr. Desai has also cited the following
Judgments:
Kannan (Dead) By Lrs And Others vs V.S. Pandurangam (Dead) By Lrs & Others on 27 November, 2007
7. Though not argued the issue of substantial
question of law being dealt with at the time
of summary dismissal of second appeal is
being dismissed and that substantial
questions of law are being found much less
questions of law they need not be framed and
Page 19 of 24
HC-NIC Page 19 of 24 Created On Sat Apr 29 00:37:24 IST 2017
C/MCA/2685/2016 CAV ORDER
answered. When the substance of the judgment
delivered answers the issues and arguments
advanced, when parties go in to an appeal
know fully well the issue/ the rival case
arising for consideration before court, such
over technical argument cannot be entertained
as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
reported in 2007(15) SCC 157 in the case of
Kannan (dead) through LRS and others versus
V.S.Pandurangam (dead) by Lrs and others.
Laliteshwar Prasad Singh & Ors vs S.P.Srivastava(D) Tr.Lr on 15 December, 2016
In
2017(2)SCC 415 in the case of Laliteshwar
Prasad Singh and others versus
S.P.Srivastava(dead) through legal
representatives, while considering order 41
Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure code, 1908 it
has been held that where Appellate court
agrees with the views of Trial court, it need
not restate everything and expression of
general agreement with reasons given by Trial
Court would ordinarily suffice in such a case
and in this judgment it was a case and
argument under section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 points of determination
are not framed, despite that the said law is
laid down. That if there are no substantial
questions of law which arise also on that
they need not be framed and that too before
admission of Second Appeal under section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 then no
such question is required to be framed where
the Second appeal is summarily dismissed. I
Page 20 of 24
HC-NIC Page 20 of 24 Created On Sat Apr 29 00:37:24 IST 2017
C/MCA/2685/2016 CAV ORDER
have dealt with this issue because the same
is reflected in the written submission of the
Applicants but not a single oral argument was
advanced on the issue by the Applicants.
Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors vs Chief Executive Officer, M.P. & Ors on 15 March, 2004
In the case of Surendra Kumar Vakil and
others Vs. Chief Executive Officer, M.P. and
others reported in 2004(10) SCC 126 in
paragraph 10 it has been held that a point
that has been heard and decided by the court
cannot form aground for review even if
assuming that the view taken in the judgment
under review is erroneous.
Rajinder Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 11 July, 2008
(C) 2008(0) GLHEL_SC 41780 in the case of
Rajinder Singh versus State of Jammu and
Kashmir
It has been argued that revenue entry
cannot decide ownership and title.